Another "what lens" thread for you all to disagree on...

[havoc]

Want to replace my 28-135IS with something a bit wider-angle but still a handy walkabout lens. Budget is c.£300. Options so far are:-

Canon 17-85IS - default option, great range plus IS. But bad CA and quite soft at wide-angle, plus only f/4 at best.

Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 Di II LD Asph. - looks like a very good lens (esp for the &#163 but is it a little 'short' - my 18-55 kit-lens frustrated me on occasion when I first got the camera. Might need something to 'bridge' to my 70-300...but then is it the right lens for 'walkabout' purposes?

Sigma 17-70 f/2.8 - 4.5 Macro - not quite as good as the Tamron but has extra range, and has macro, which I've never used but would be nice to play with...


Alternatively, I keep the 28-135 and get a proper wide-angle - something like the Tamron but poss even shorter. It would mean more swapping of lenses though, which given my recent dust problems might not be great...


So...what do you all think, and have I missed anything?

[Simpo Two]

Do you need a fast lens? The faster it is, the more zoom you trade off. It all depends what's more important in what you plan to do.

[miniman]

Sigma 18-200?

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/product/default.as...

Not sure if this is the HSM (USM) version or not, but there is one according to sigmaphoto.com.

[VxDuncan]

Personally would avoid the superzooms - tend to find what you gain in flexiblity you lose in image quality. Would rather change a lens if I need to thean get home and find soft images and lots of CA.

I have the Tamron 17-50 F2.8. Great lens, sharp and fast. Very sharp infact! Build quality is utter pants however, and has already had to be fixed once. I like the speed and the range, so another time would go for the sigma F2.8 equiv. Don't worry about the "hole" in the range between 50 and 70mm. Will make no difference in the field. I have 17-50 and 80-200 F2.8 lenses and never notice I'm missing a bit.

Fast is good. The ability to separate a subject from it's background is everything for me. If you don't get an F2.8 lens DO by a cheap 50mm F1.8 special and see what you're missing...

[flat-planedCrank]

I'd probably steer clear of the super-zooms as well, too much of a compromise imo.

If your looking at paying retail prices then i'd discount the 17-85 (unless you really need IS / USM)

I'd probably go for the Tamron - constant f2.8, reasnoable AF (though I hear its noisy ?), decent price.

If you really want more reach then the Sigma seems to have a decent reputation, only thing i'd want to check it in-store is the AF speed.

photozone.de reviews..
"Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF]" (!)
"Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC macro"
"Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 USM IS"

Cheers.

[havoc]

Thanks Guys,

John - depends what photography I'm doing. People and some holiday-stuff (non-landscape) are best with a shallow d-o-f, and at the moment the best I can do is f/3.5. So a 2.8 would be very nice...which is a point against the Canon 17-85.

(All) - But the extra 'reach' of the 28-135 has come in handy when trying to isolate something in the middle-distance (IYSWIM), and I'm just worried that 50mm is going to mean cropping a lot. Sure it'll be OK if the focus is good enough and the image is sharp-enough, but it's another factor.

If I get the Tamron I'll be tempted to keep the 28-135, which is probably worth near-£200 to me if I flog it, so it becomes a more expensive option...of course if I get one of the others I'll probably start yearning for either a wide(ish)-angle prime for portraits etc., or a proper wide-angle zoom (10-22???). Too many choices...

Cheers for now,

M.

[rhubarb]

What about the Sigma 10-20mm. Since I've had mine it's hardly been off the camera. Its great and it's making me think a little more about the shots I'm taking (only a little mind you). Sigma also do a 18-50 f2.8 but I'm sure some here took there's back and stuck with the kit lens